Topic: Shhh! Got any (more) gear? A ramble from a geriatric amnesia candidate

[zapsnaps]

I've been spending far too much time online recently - well, for months, actually - considering a not inconsiderable investment in a lens (which would no doubt require a body I don't own) to give me some bokeh. Not for street work per se, but for blurred backgrounds when I take portraits outside, either in the smarter streets (probably 'roads') of London, or in even smarter countryside. We should all a one-point-something lens right? Well, perhaps not.

I was looking through my photofiles the other day for an image of a particular model. I couldn't remember her name (I blame my age) but I knew that I'd used the 500c/m, so I opened every file marked BLAD until I found her. And there she was. Standing in a field, with lovely bokeh by the bucket load. When I realised this, I started to look at the photo set and they were all taken, not with the portrait 150mm f4, but with the standard 80mm f2.8. Snap after snap of background loveliness, from a heavily rallied lens worth £250-300.

My long winded point. Before I decide to 'invest' in another piece of kit, I'm going to go through my existing gear and decide how I can create what I need from what I've got.

And the savings? Well, that will be spent on wasting more film. I'm going to use the Blad extensively this year & have even decided to take the 500 & 80mm as my 'carry' camera on this year's long haul holiday. I might come back with one arm considerably more developed than the other, but my backgrounds will be, as young persons used to say, about 40 years ago, 'outta sight'.

[Francois]

I must say that these days I have plenty of camera envy, but I blame that on winter blues
But so far I've been very good at holding off any purchase. Instead I want to work on some oddball conversions and hacks. They take more time than clicking buy on ebay so I can keep the gas at bay for longer.

But it's true, after some time we get to have plenty of great gear we forget about. I personally have too many 35mm cameras for it to be considered sane. But then again, how can I resist a camera that sells for less than half the price of a lunch at a cheap restaurant?

[astrobeck]

we are all in the same boat around here I think....

I would like to see a sample photo or two of the lovely bokeh you mention....as I too am enamored with some nice swirly backgrounds.
I seldom shoot anything like that since most of my stuff is wide angle landscape lost in the desert kind of stuff...but I do have eyes and the heart for changing gears this year.
No new kit for me since I have a devilish Zenit and a Helios 44-4 that fits the swirl ticket okay...I think.

anyway, show us some bokeh, as there are never enough photo to look at AFAIC   

[zapsnaps]

Francois: I agree - I have quite a few 35mm cameras bought for less than £30 - they are just so pretty and ideal to stuff in a pocket on an overnight away. I need to fess-up on the GAS thread, as I may have received one yesterday...
Astrobeck: if I had your dexterity, I'd be fiddling with camera mods or builds all the time!

I don't post snaps on here for a couple of reasons: my 'serious' film stuff is 99% art nude, and this a safe for work sort of forum. On business trips I pack 35mm or d*g*t*l P&S and try and create non-tourist pics of tourist destination cities. But in order to post them here, I need to prior host them somewhere else on the web, from what I understand (which is usually fractional, misinformed or just wrong). I have no social media accounts; even my website no longer works since they stopped supporting Flash at the start of the year. And I'm cool with that. I prefer to create rather than show, unless I am lucky enough to be asked to exhibit, which hasn't happened for at least 5 years. Perhaps that's because I don't show...

[Jeff Warden]

Standing in a field, with lovely bokeh by the bucket load. When I realised this, I started to look at the photo set and they were all taken, not with the portrait 150mm f4, but with the standard 80mm f2.8. Snap after snap of background loveliness, from a heavily rallied lens worth £250-300.

I'm also having a "use what you already have" kind of year, and that's no hardship as I have too much that I don't use already. I am allowing new filters and lens hoods, and a lens for the enlarger, but that's it. The rest goes toward film and printing.



Here's a pic of my thugs with the 80mm Hassy. It's a fine lens that I don't use all that often. The one on the left turned 18 last week. My the time it does fly.

[EarlJam]

A bit of swirly bokeh for Becky, from my archive: a 4x5 from my dad, shot with a Graflex Series B and Kodak Anastigmat.

And as Jeff notes with the shot of his boys, an 80mm with medium format gives lovely separation, in this case a Mamiya TLR 80/2.8.

Having used a variety of 35mm systems over the years, I've come to the conclusion that there are a lot of challenges to get similar results with 35mm film, due to the size of the native image. If I'm going to have to acquire and then lug around a 2 lb/1-ish kg 50mm to get background separation, I'd just as soon shoot medium format at this point.

[Francois]

I know I've been looking at the modern versions of the Petzval for a few years and for some reason I don't really get the appeal of such a hardcore swirl. A bit of swirl might be fun but I feel that the Petzval is a bit too much...

[AJShepherd]

I have a Zenit EM with the Helios 44 which can do swirly bokeh.
I have a £25 CCTV lens to use with a d*g*t*l which throws out masses of swirliness.

I have friends who if I show them any swirly images will go "Argh, no, take it away! YUK!"

I think it's one of those things to use in small doses, and wouldn't want to spend a lot of money on a lens to achieve the effect!

[Bryan]

I have a £25 CCTV lens to use with a d*g*t*l which throws out masses of swirliness.

Is that a C-mount lens?  I have a few for movie cameras, 16mm and 8mm cameras.  I haven't tried them on a digital camera yet but I assume it would have to be something like a micro 4/3 camera to get good coverage. 

[Francois]

Yeah, you really need mirrorless and preferably MFT to get the most out of these lenses. But there's the added benefit of being able to get very cheap ultra wide aperture lenses. That's pretty much the only way to get an f/1.2 lens under 100$

[Kai-san]

Francois: I agree - I have quite a few 35mm cameras bought for less than £30 - they are just so pretty and ideal to stuff in a pocket on an overnight away. I need to fess-up on the GAS thread, as I may have received one yesterday...
Astrobeck: if I had your dexterity, I'd be fiddling with camera mods or builds all the time!

I don't post snaps on here for a couple of reasons: my 'serious' film stuff is 99% art nude, and this a safe for work sort of forum. On business trips I pack 35mm or d*g*t*l P&S and try and create non-tourist pics of tourist destination cities. But in order to post them here, I need to prior host them somewhere else on the web, from what I understand (which is usually fractional, misinformed or just wrong). I have no social media accounts; even my website no longer works since they stopped supporting Flash at the start of the year. And I'm cool with that. I prefer to create rather than show, unless I am lucky enough to be asked to exhibit, which hasn't happened for at least 5 years. Perhaps that's because I don't show...

You can upload your pics directly from your computer to this forum, no need to host them on any (un)social media. Just click on "Attachment and other options" and you will see what your options are.

[AJShepherd]

Bryan: Yes, it's a c-mount lens. It doesn't cover all the frame of an MFT sensor wide open and vignettes worse when stopped down. But as the lens and adaptor were both dirt cheap and it's fine if you shoot in 1:1 mode I've had some interesting results from it.